Four Deserving Hall of Famers, Omar Vizquel New to Ballot
As I noted in my post at the end of last week regarding Hall of Fame holdovers, the ballot is a bit of a mess right now. There are already seven players who’ve received at least 45% of the vote — generally a pretty good gauge of worthiness when it comes to the Hall — plus a handful of others (Larry Walker, in particular) who are lower on the ballot but deserve induction, as well.
Joining that group of deserving candidates this offseason is a collection of four additional players who merit a place in the Hall — as well as Omar Vizquel, who is getting a lot of votes in the early going. This year’s entries include one no-doubter (Chipper Jones), another who’s deserving and likely to earn induction on the strength of his offensive contributions (Jim Thome), and two more players who merit selection but whose case rests largely on defensive contributions (Andruw Jones and Scott Rolen).
Before we get to the contenders, let’s take a brief look at the players who’ve earned spots on the ballot with solid careers but lack much of a case for the Hall.
For the players below, I’ve included several metrics, including Hall of Fame rating and JAWS. If you’re unfamiliar with Hall of Fame rating, you can find the introduction here. It works similarly to Jay Jaffe’s JAWS except that it uses FanGraphs WAR instead of Baseball-Reference and measures peak in a different way, so as to encompass all of a player’s good seasons. HOF AVG and MEDIAN denote the average and median HOF Ratings of players at a candidate’s respective position. BBWAA AVG and MEDIAN denote the same thing, except consider only those players voted in by writers (and not those inducted by, say, the Veterans’ Committee).
| Name | HOF Points | WAR | HOF RATING | HOF AVG | HOF MEDIAN | BBWAA AVG | BBWAA MEDIAN | JAWS | JAWS Pos |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Livan Hernandez |
14 | 34.5 | 24.3 | 55.5 | 50.8 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 29.4 | 62.1 |
| Carlos Zambrano |
13 | 30.6 | 21.8 | 55.5 | 50.8 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 41.8 | 62.1 |
| Carlos Lee |
9 | 27.5 | 18.3 | 55.7 | 49.7 | 62.7 | 52.5 | 25.8 | 53.3 |
| Kerry Wood |
10 | 23.7 | 16.9 | 55.5 | 50.8 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 26.4 | 62.1 |
| Orlando Hudson |
5 | 21.1 | 13.1 | 59.8 | 52.8 | 77.1 | 65.4 | 29.1 | 56.9 |
| Aubrey Huff |
9 | 17.1 | 13.1 | 59.1 | 57.0 | 66.3 | 57.1 | 21.4 | 54.6 |
| Hideki Matsui |
4 | 12.9 | 8.5 | 55.7 | 49.7 | 62.7 | 52.5 | 21.3 | 53.3 |
| Brad Lidge |
3 | 11.6 | 7.3 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 10.3 | 34.4 |
| Jason Isringhausen |
2 | 11.2 | 6.6 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 22.3 | 18.7 | 12.7 | 34.4 |
Here are some notes on each player:
- Livan Hernandez had a nice career, including the receipt of a World Series MVP award with the Marlins in 1997, but passed much of his time as a roughly average innings-eater with three seasons above four WAR.
- In every season between 2003 to 2007, Carlos Zambrano exceeded 200 innings and averaged four wins a season, but after a couple more decent seasons, the productive part of his career was basically over after 2010.
- Carlos Lee was a good hitter and durable player, recording a 112 wRC+ and 628 plate appearances per season over his 14-year career. He hit at least 24 homers in 11 straight years. His overall defense probably wasn’t as bad as you remember if you watched mostly the latter half of his playing days and, as a left fielder, he supplied enough pop to be an above-average player.
- Kerry Wood has the single-game strikeout record with 20, but arm problems derailed a promising career and forced him to the bullpen before retiring after the 2012 season.
- Orlando Hudson put up average offensive numbers with solid defense at second base over the course of his 11-year career.
- Aubrey Huff was a decent power hitter back when the Devil Rays were still a thing, and he will always have the 2010 championship season with the San Francisco Giants in which he put up six wins. That campaign was sandwiched, however, by two years during which he recorded a combined three wins below replacement level.
- Hideki Matsui didn’t make it to the United States until his age-29 season but did last 10 years in the big leagues with a 119 wRC+.
- Brad Lidge was a really good reliever over his first three years as a major leaguer, a pretty good one for three years after that, and then proceeded to retain a big-league job for the last four years of his career.
- Jason Isringhausen racked up 300 saves and was a fairly effective closer for a number of years with the A’s and Cardinals until he was replaced midway through the 2006 season, St. Louis eventually winning the World Series with Adam Wainwright at the back of the bullpen.
Now here’s a group of guys who were very good but probably fall short of the Hall of Fame.
| Name | HOF Points | WAR | HOF RATING | HOF AVG | HOF MEDIAN | BBWAA AVG | BBWAA MEDIAN | JAWS | JAWS Pos |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Johan Santana |
30 | 45.4 | 37.7 | 55.5 | 50.8 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 48.1 | 62.1 |
| Kevin Millwood |
22 | 46.1 | 34.1 | 55.5 | 50.8 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 27.1 | 62.1 |
| Johnny Damon |
19 | 44.5 | 31.8 | 64.6 | 49.2 | 92.1 | 77.1 | 44.4 | 57.9 |
| Jamie Moyer |
15 | 48.2 | 31.6 | 55.5 | 50.8 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 41.8 | 62.1 |
| Chris Carpenter |
20 | 39.1 | 29.6 | 55.5 | 50.8 | 66.9 | 63.3 | 32.1 | 62.1 |
| Omar Vizquel |
16 | 42.6 | 29.3 | 55.0 | 52.5 | 62.0 | 57.8 | 36 | 54.8 |
I’ve already written about Omar Vizquel and about just how terrible he was on offense, so there’s no need to go over it again.
Chris Carpenter was an above-average pitcher with the Blue Jays for a few seasons, sustained an injury, and then reemerged with the Cardinals from 2004 to 11. While limited by injury a bit in St. Louis, as well, Carpenter nevertheless pitched like an ace during six healthy seasons, averaging roughly five wins each. That period included a Cy Young award, two other top-three finishes, and two World Series Championships. He started three of the seven games in the 2011 World Series, including the clincher, and had a 2.00 ERA in four World Series starts. He has 108 postseason innings with a 3.00 ERA and a 4.30 FIP.
Jamie Moyer pitched for a really, really long time. Overall, he was an average pitcher, which is pretty remarkable over 4,000 innings. Nathaniel Rakich recently compared Moyer’s case to Omar Vizquel, and the two are pretty close in value.
Johnny Damon amassed a lot of hits (2769), had a good walk rate, didn’t strike out much, and stole over 400 bases at a high rate (79.8%). He’s one of 10 players with at least 400 steals and 200 homers, though only half the members of that fraternity are Hall of Famers. His less-than-stellar defense balanced out his very good baserunning, leaving an above-average hitter (105 wRC+) on a few pretty well known championship teams. He was often good, with four four-WAR seasons and another seven above two wins, but he was never great.
Kevin Millwood finished his career with an ERA and FIP both around four, and that is pretty good given that his career came about during the late 90s and early 2000s. Millwood had five season of at least four wins and finished third in the Cy Young in 1999. His numbers look better than I expected at first glance.
There are going to be some Sandy Koufax comparisons when it comes to Johan Santana due to his short career and excellence when healthy. Santana was great, winning two Cy Young awards and finishing third twice. The comparisons to Koufax are still a bit unrealistic, though. From 2004 to -06, Santana averaged 6.9 WAR, which is great. Koufax, on the other hand, averaged 7.7 WAR between 1961 and 1966, which is otherworldly given the production came in double the years of Santana’s best. Santana was great, but he really doesn’t come close to Koufax in terms of greatness. If you prefer Baseball Reference’s version of WAR, Santana’s 7.1 average WAR from 2004 to -08 is impressive, but it still doesn’t match Koufax’s 7.8 bWAR over a six-year period.
Then we have the guys who should make the Hall of Fame.
| HOF Points | WAR | HOF RATING | HOF AVG | HOF MEDIAN | BBWAA AVG | BBWAA MEDIAN | JAWS | JAWS Pos | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chipper Jones |
62 | 84.6 | 73.3 | 57.3 | 52.6 | 71.9 | 75.3 | 65.8 | 55.2 |
| Scott Rolen |
53 | 70.1 | 61.6 | 57.3 | 52.6 | 71.9 | 75.3 | 56.8 | 55.2 |
| Andruw Jones |
53 | 67.1 | 60.1 | 64.6 | 49.2 | 92.1 | 77.1 | 54.6 | 57.9 |
| Jim Thome |
46 | 68.9 | 57.5 | 59.1 | 57.0 | 66.3 | 57.1 | 57.2 | 54.6 |
We have one slam dunk in Chipper Jones. The 1999 MVP winner shouldn’t really need a big write-up, but his 85 WAR places him in a tie with George Brett for fourth place all time among third baseman, trailing only Mike Schmidt, Eddie Mathews, and Wade Boggs by that measure.
As for Jim Thome, it seems as though his 612 home runs are going to get him into the Hall of Fame, although I will also note that, of the 85 players who played long enough to compile 10,000 plate appearances (including 52 Hall of Famers), only Babe Ruth and Barry Bonds have a higher walk rate than Thome’s 16.9%.
I’ve previously addressed Scott Rolen’s candidacy at length, and Paul Swydan discussed Andruw Jones’ candidacy.
The addition of four deserving candidates creates a lot of tough calls for voters who are allowed to make just 10 selections. If I had one, I think I would take the four new deserving candidates above along with Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Edgar Martinez, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling, and Larry Walker. If I could expand my ballot, I would probably include Vladimir Guerrero, Manny Ramirez, and Gary Sheffield.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
“The addition of four deserving candidates creates a lot of tough calls for voters who are allowed to make just 10 selections.” I don’t see why this is tough. If there are more 10 slam dunk should be Hall of Famers, pick 10 and move along. Problem is the small Hall guys don’t believe that and it is probably very easy for them to pick their guys.
So how would you decide who not to vote for?
Vote for the ones that are most likely to need your vote to get to 75% (or closer to build momentum) or 5%.
Or just vote for the 10 you think are the best.
Which essentially is what people are doing, nein?
I’m conflicted on the former approach. On one hand, it does seem to maximize your voting power to vote based on context such as if it’s a player’s final year. However, I wonder if voters continually doing this sort of “ballot management” type thing is actually causing the problem that they’re trying to solve. If voters do anything other than simply voting for the ten best players, then some of the best players, by the voter’s own definition, are at risk for slipping another year, requiring more ballot management the next year to solve the problem that they created.
Using some arbitrary players as examples, if some voter votes for Fred McGriff instead of Jim Thome, but he really thinks Jim Thome is better, he’s just concerned that Fred McGriff is slipping, now next year he has to solve the Jim Thome problem he created. Now what happens if the voting pool gets more competitive? Some players like Thome that, again, by his own definition were deserving in a prior year, might be faced with an uphill battle. If many voters think this way, it could have a systematic effect.
It feels like ballot management might create a mess that would be solved by just consistently voting for the best players every year. Of course, some ballots are more competitive than others, so players slip, but that’s inherently part of the idea of the Hall of Fame. You’re always competing against your peers, and the structure of the voting demands that you choose the ten best every year. If a player was never once one of the ten best for their entire eligibility, and is now on their final ballot and still is not one of the ten best on this ballot, that’s probably an indication that they aren’t deserving by the present voting structure. Whether or not you think the structure is a good one is a separate debate.
Yep, it’ll screw a few guys over in the short term for everyone to stop managing their ballots. But in the long term it’ll do more to fix the problem than trying to game it out. And if the number of players worthy of consideration by the Today’s Game and Modern Baseball committees shrinks, more of the candidates inspiring ballot management will eventually get their enshrinement via those other paths.
The obvious problem is with the voting process set forth by the HOF. I’m gobsmacked that they can’t get it right. A guy is or isn’t a HOFer, though in some cases a voter may not be sure about a particular player.
Which means that voters should be required to vote on every player on the ballot – yes, no, not sure. The Yes’s lead to election, the Yes’s + Not sure’s determine if someone stays on the ballot or not.
It’s an interesting thing to ponder, what the ideal ballot would look like. I support 14 guys. I don’t think PED guys should be kept out, but I also don’t mind making them wait. So I would probably vote Vlad, Andruw, Chipper, Edgar, Mussina, Rolen, Schilling, Sheffield, Thome, Walker. Sheffield over the other PED guys (Bonds, Clemens, Manny, Sosa) because he looks likeliest to fall below 5%. I could be totally wrong though, voting for the ten best might be better, since no one knows for sure the clean guys were really clean. At any rate, the ten vote maximum is supremely dumb and needs abolished.
I don’t think there is a one year answer to the right ballot, you have to have a multi year plan to keep guys from timing out or falling off the bottom of the ballot
Because it’s inarguable:
1. Chipper Jones
Because I think the great PED guys need to get in, and to do that they need to keep showing momentum:
2. Barry Bonds
3. Roger Clemens
Should get in before Thome or Vlad do, especially in year 8 of candidacy:
4. Edgar Martinez
Because it’s now a joke with Morris in:
5. Mike Mussina
6. Curt Schilling
To keep deserving guys from falling off the ballot:
7. Gary Sheffield
8. Larry Walker
9. Andruw Jones
Vlad and Thome will have their day and have plenty of time to make it in, and I am not sold on Trevor Hoffman. I wish I had one more spot for Manny. Rolen probably has enough support to stick around until next year.
Sosa…I put you on the McGwire and Palmeiro category, if you got caught with PEDs the bar is higher, Bonds and Clemens are above it.
What about Manny?
He wish he had one more spot for him.
So I just discovered that it’s 10 votes and not 9, and that it’s Edgar’s 9th season of eligibility.
Oddball Herrera, long on opinions, short on facts I guess 🙂
You are not deciding who not to vote. You are picking 10 worthy candidates. If there are more than 10 definitely worthy candidates, that is all you can do. How you pick those 10 guys out of the pool of worthy candidates is irrelevant as all ballots with 10 worthy candidates is as perfect as a ballot can be. You can’t control how other people vote.
Voting should only be tough when a voter actually has to discern if a borderline HoF player is worthy or not (i.e., less than 10 definite Hall of Fame worthy guys).
Your view of HOF ballots as strictly votes FOR seems deliberately narrow. You seem not to care that candidates are constrained by both time and the 5% dropoff threshold.
To use an extreme hypothetical, suppose that all voters agreed on the same 11 utterly worthy candidates, in the same order, and all voted for the top 10. Number 11 would then be DROPPED from the writers’ ballot, even though every voter wanted him in the Hall.
Some people would still find it easy to vote for the top 10 in that scenario, and I wouldn’t criticize them. But a lot of people would find it tough, and I’d understand why.
If every voter voted for the same 10 guys, the 11th guy though worthy would lose eligibility. If every person voted to keep person “X” on the ballot, a better player could be dropped off or the backlog could be worsened such that less than 10 of the 11 worthy candidates make it to the Hall eventually.
I’m not advocating that a voter has to pick the best 10 guys. Voter just needs to pick 10 guys that are worthy. If they vote who they think are the 10 best, that is fine. If they vote for ten worthy guys trying to keep certain guys on, that is fine. If they put every worthy player’s name in a hat and draw ten names, that is fine.
Problem isn’t with a ballot that has 10 Hall worthy names on it. These aren’t the ballots keeping worthy guys out.
Easy Choice [7]: Chipper (1st year), Schilling (5th), Mussina (6th), Walker (8th), Thome (1st), Rolen (1st) & Martinez (9th)
Debatable [3]: Bonds (6th), Clemens (6th), Manny (2nd)
None of the other players have above average HOF profiles.
If you feel the need to vote for one of the other candidates- as Travis did above with A. Jones – then Manny (only +1.3 JAWS-Jpos, caught PED) can wait until his 3/4th year.
Similarly making Hoffmann (3rd year) & Vlad (2nd year) get in on their 4/5th tries during the easier years ahead (only Jeter, Mo & Arod above average candidates in the next 5 classes) would not be difficult, or tragic, or due to backlog. Instead it’d be fitting.
Apart from that we are talking above guys with below average profiles who got caught or admitted using (Sosa, Sheffield) or other guys with below average profiles (aside from Vlad and Hoffman: Damon, McGriff, Kent, Santana).
The Moyer-Vizquel 2018 campaign slogan should be:
“Expand the Hall, Induct Them All!”
Or maybe:
“Long Careers, Give a Cheer!”
Or perhaps:
“Don’t Be Clever, We Played Forever!”
They could hand out buttons.
At this point, I’m just hoping Rolen and Andruw Jones don’t fall off the ballot so maybe they can get some traction next year.
By RA9-WAR Moyer had the 89th best pitching career of all time, right on the HOF borderline. Vizquel on the other hand has no real case. Regardless I’m not sure why long productive careers deserve snark and jeers, if anything peak is overvalued in current Hall of Fame debates. A win is a win is a win and Moyer created 55 of them by RA9-WAR, he’d be a perfectly respectable era committee inductee. Peak value is nice and all but the emphasis on it is arbitrary and subjective, if understandable. There’s no evidence to support the idea that the career value distribution of high-peak players contribute more wins or pennants than their high-longevity counterparts, assuming equal career WAR. Compilers get a bum rap.
Harold Baines and Charlie Hough endorse this post.
It probably isn’t fair to snark and jeer at Vizquel and Moyer, who may very well be good human beings (I have no idea). But I haven’t figured out how to clearly direct it at the writers who vote for them and not Vizquel/Moyer. Suggestions are appreciated.
Baines and Hough didn’t approach the number of wins Moyer created by either RA9-WAR or fWAR. Dennis Martinez would be a fairer comp. Anyway I wouldn’t vote for Moyer especially on this crowded a ballot but his candidacy doesn’t warrant the same kind of dismissal as Vizquel’s or the players you mention.
“if anything peak is overvalued in current Hall of Fame debates”
My personal take is the opposite is true.
I’d agree that two players with 45 career WAR contribute the same number of wins whether it’s 15 3-WAR seasons or 7 6-WAR, and 3-WAR season (plus a couple replacement level seasons if someone wants to pick nits about eligibility). But if we look at WAA, which I think better measures greatness, it’s 15 vs. 29.
Also, I think it’s clear that peak players contribute more to pennant and league average players. If you had a 15 WAR player, he’d make you a playoff contender with any reasonable kind of core.
That Vizquel is getting consideration and Thome is going in, while Schilling and Mussina can’t get in, suggests voter lean toward compilers with big career totals rather than great peak players.
Thome’s peak is HOF-worthy anyway, forgetting the longevity aspect. He should be a HOF under any circumstance or viewing.
I think the link between peak-WAA players and pennants is less than commonly thought, especially in the 2-wild-card era.
This isn’t a proper study, but anyway … Since 2012:
— The top 40 WAA years by position players have contributed to just 4 of the 12 pennants — Altuve this year, Bryant last year, Cain in 2015 and Posey in 2012.
— None of the top 9 WAA years was for a pennant winner; just 2 made the playoffs, and one reached the LCS.
— Two teams had 2 of the top 40 in WAA. Both finished under .500 — this year’s Angels (Trout & Simmons), and the 2015 D-backs (Goldschmidt & Pollock).
— Pennant winners’ top position players averaged 4.5 WAA and 6.6 WAR.
“There’s no evidence to support the idea that the career value distribution of high-peak players contribute more wins or pennants….”
Actually, Bill James thoroughly investigated this very question some 25-30 years ago in a book chapter entitled Sutton Versus Drysdale, or something like that. James found that the high-peak player DID in fact do more to increase the championship chances, even if the overall career contributions were effectively identical.
Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=f_v8RmhGjekC&pg=PT96&lpg=PT96&dq=sutton+versus+drysdale+Bill+James&source=bl&ots=IGyzJ2sQVj&sig=RXuIm1w2fl3UsQdDeus_xgvMjmc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjL-6fEh5fYAhUJ5YMKHRZiBzsQ6AEIPDAE#v=onepage&q=sutton%20versus%20drysdale%20Bill%20James&f=false
I was going by more recent work by David Gassko: https://www.fangraphs.com/tht/pennants-added/
>The value of an additional win peaks at four wins above replacement; four years of average performance (two WAR) is more valuable than one huge MVP year (eight WAR)!
I doubt either of them falls off. Jones is currently at 10.6% in the HOF tracker, Rolen at 15.2%.
But I also doubt they’ll ever gain much traction. The HOF has always been hard on CFers and 3rd baseman. And both of their cases rest heavily on defensive stats, which many voters are dismissive towards.
Jones has 10 Gold Gloves and Rolen has 8. If the voters dismiss the stats, maybe they’ll pay attention to the hardware.
Perhaps but another part of their challenge is that they were both very unique players. Which tends to make some voters uneasy. They want to hang their vote on a player being similar (or not) to someone who’s already in the HOF. i.e, Vizquel is a HOFer because he was like Ozzie Smith. Santana’s not a HOFer because he wasn’t as good as Koufax (see above).
But who are the comps for Jones and Rolen?
If you look at the similarity scores over on Baseball Reference, there’s only one player who’s truly similar (900+ similarity score) to Jones (Dale Murphy). For Rolen, there’s no one.
If you look at the Hall of Stats, their most similar players are players at other positions.
Look at this list: Robin Ventura, Buddy Bell, Bid McPhee, Scott Rolen, Graig Nettles. Those are the 5 most similar players for Andruw Jones!
And here’s the list for Rolen: Bobby Grich, Chase Utley, Yogi Berra, Ken Boyer, Andruw Jones.
BR’s similarity scores are really quite poor and basically worthless. I take your point though, although with Rolen the first name that comes to my mind is Santo. For Andruw, the voters should just be pummeled into submission with the Ozzie Smith comp: Ozzie was rightfully elected even though he couldn’t hit because he was the greatest shortstop of all time. Andruw was the greatest centerfielder of all time, and could actually hit, so he should be elected as well.
Regardless of the worth of BR’s similarity scores (which are actually a slight modification of Bill James’), I see them referenced quite a bit by baseball writers.
That’s a shame. I’m aware they originated with James, but they’re some of his very worst work, a pile of arbitrary points signifying basically nothing. Amazing that writers would be willing to invest in them while eschewing much more sophisticated, meaningful measures. I’d even go so far to say that I’d put more stock in a random BBWAA member’s subjective assessment of similarity than I would his similarity scores. Which is probably about how the writers approach them too, only trotting them out to support a conclusion they’d already reached.
“I’m aware they originated with James, but they’re some of his very worst work”
FWIW James explicitly described it as a “toy.” It’s definitely not his doing that people try to hang more significance on it than that.
Yes, similarity scores are worthless for value comparisons. They have other interesting uses, but the lack of context adjustments makes them irrelevant to HOF considerations.
As you mention, similarity scores should not be used for value comparisons. I view them as a tool like Wikipedia. You would never write a formal paper with Wiki as your sole citation, but it’s a great place to start generating some ideas on an unfamiliar subject, follow the citations to some more authoritative sources, etc.
Similarity scores are nice in that they give a decent set of comparable careers without having to comb over every player ever. As 3cardmonty states, “I’d even go so far to say that I’d put more stock in a random BBWAA member’s subjective assessment of similarity than I would his similarity scores.” That’s all well and good if you feel like you know what the comp universe is, which you likely do for HoF players, but for other players it can be quite useful to get a quick and dirty set of comps to work with. Yes, a more thorough analysis would be better, but time cannot be discounted when it comes to the utility of a measure.
For example, my favorite team is the Orioles. If I want to try and figure out who Adam Jones compares to, looking at his similarity scores (through age-31 season), I get the following top-6:
Andre Dawson
Vernon Wells
Gus Bell
Matt Kemp
Billy Williams
Dave Winfield
That’s a pretty good starting point from which to compare IMO if you didn’t have any other info to start with (you can then start digging into more advanced metrics), especially for a 2-second exercise.
I would argue that it’s rather unjust to say that Ozzie Smith “couldn’t hit.”
Smith struggled badly with the stick for a few years at the outset of his career, but then was a solid league average bat for a dozen seasons, from 1982 to 1993 (cumulative wRC+ of 99).
(During those same twelve years he was also the 5th most valuable baserunner in the sport, trailing only Rickey Henderson, Tim Raines, Vince Coleman, and Willie Wilson. Smith was much more than just an historically great glove.)
There is absolutely nothing suggesting that being a unique player hurts a HOF candidate.
Rolen (70 WAR) compares to Jeter (71.8 WAR), Jeter will sail in first ballot, but Rolen will still get in.
Jones is slightly different having an underaverage profile, but he will still get in. The HOF is adding about 4 players a year, pretty much all the guys being discussed will get in within the next 11 years. The Today’s Game Eras committee meets twice every 5 years, so for HOF classes 2022, 2023, 2027, & 2028.
That’s because players are not elected to the HOF based on WAR. We all use it here, but the majority of HOF voters either don’t use it, or use it as just one input into their thought process.
“Vizquel is a HOFer because he was like Ozzie Smith. Santana’s not a HOFer because he wasn’t as good as Koufax”
This is blatantly wrong.
Just as Santana is not as good as Koufax,
Vizquel is not as good as Smith, if not more so.
Smith’s top seasons by WAR: 6.7, 6.3, 5.8, 5.6, 5.1
Vizquel’s top seasons by WAR: 6.0, 3.4, 3.4, 3.3, 3.3.
1) Ummm…you do realize that I’m parroting the thought process of certain voters, not expressing my own opinion, don’t you?
2) As some of us have shown below, there is evidence to support the idea that Santana and Koufax are comparable.
They will both get in.
There are very few decent candidates in coming years- just Jeter, Mo and Arod have above average profiles for the next 5 years. The other two most prominent names coming up are Pettitte and Ortiz.
If the three caught PED users of that group (Arod, Pettitte and Ortiz) are kept out, that means only 2 HOFer will enter the pool from now until 2018.
With 2.5 players per year getting inducted by the writers, and likely 1.5 or so by the Eras committee, we can expect 12+ inductees by the writers from now until 2022, as well as 7 or so from the Eras committee.
Anyone who narrowly misses the writers vote in the next 5 years, will likely get in during the two years (2022, 2023) where the ‘Today’s Era’ ballot will be put forward during the winter meetings. So at most – even if all this PR nonsense causes the pro-PED crowd to screw over Walker or Edgar to make a point- they will still get into the HOF in 2022 or 2023.
Highly doubtful that they both get in. If they do, it will be a long time from now.
Right now, they’re both polling under 20%. If memory serves me correctly, the BBWAA has only ever elected one player who got under 20% of the vote his first year (Duke Snider). In fact, they’re both way behind Manny Ramirez, a player of comparable value, whose vote total is limited by his failed drug tests. That’s how poorly the voters think of Rolen and Jones…they can’t even beat out Manny Ramirez.
As for the ERA committees…those tend to be a total crapshoot. And given how often they change the voting process, I certainly wouldn’t put any faith in them.
Actually Blyleven was lower than Snider (17.5%). But he needed 14 ballots to get in, something that Jones and Rolen won’t have.
(I’m not including Maranville (12.4%) since things were a wee bit different in 1937).
Love it. I was a Mariners season ticket holder for all of Moyer’s Mariners career. He was a fine pitcher and a fine person. But NO ONE ever looked at Moyer and thought they were watching a future Hall of Famer. Seems like the same was true of Vizquel (or should have been) until his last couple years when he got near 3000 hits and Ozzie comparisons popped up.
To get in the Hall of Fame, you have to be really good. (Not exactly a hot take, I know.) And Moyer and Vizquel both fail the sniff test — neither was ever very good. Vizquel had ONE (somewhat fluky) season above 4 WAR, Moyer had 2 and two that were close. By comparison, Rolen had 11.
These tiers are basically correct with I think one exception: you’re missing the 6 wins Carlos Zambrano created with his bat, which would put him in the second tier.
His bat? Are you deducting anything for destroyed water coolers?
Are you trying to detract from Sean Rodriguez’s hall of fame case?
I don’t understand being so dismissive of Santana vis a vis Koufax, when we know that much of the difference between them is simply based on differences in how pitchers were used.
From 61-66, Koufax pitched 1632.2 innings and accumulated 46.6 WAR (BR version). From 03-10, Santana pitched 1670.2 innings and accumulated 47.5 WAR. So Koufax is a Hall of Famer and Santana isn’t because he did it in two fewer years? Sorry, I don’t buy that.
Yeah, I think WAR is a rough enough gauge that averaging 7.8 vs 7.1 over a six year period doesn’t give you a real clear distinction between the two.
2 things-
1- I think Koufax would have had a much tougher time of election today.
2- Playoffs. Koufax was a beast in the playoffs- 2 WS MVP and a 0.95 career ERA in 57 innings. Santana was decent in the playoffs with a 3.97 career ERA in 34 innings. That’s a pretty big difference there.
Oh and for those that say this is a crowded ballot, I went to look at the year Koufax was elected. There were 15 Hall of Famers on that ballot. And Gil Hodges still could eventually get in.
1. That’s a fair point, that Koufax might have a harder time getting elected today.
2. True, but is that really enough to make the difference between first ballot, no doubt about it HOFer and getting 0 votes???
As for how crowded Koufax’s ballot was…of those 15 HOFers on Koufax’s ballot only 5 (Koufax, Berra, Wynn, Lemon, and Snider) got in via the BBWAA. And there were only 7 players with 60+ WAR (rounding Berra up) and none more than 71.0 (Mize). This year’s ballot has 12 players with 60+ WAR and 8 with 70+. Of course, that mostly reinforces your first point. 🙂
For your #2- My #1 point stands. If Koufax was around today- even with the playoffs- he wouldn’t have been a slam dunk. And Santana if he was back in the day, would have had more of a chance. just a different era for voting.
and look at the pitchers both compared to on the ballot…
Koufax only had Newhouser and Lemon as guys who got in the HOF from his ballot. had no one over 133 ERA+ on the ballot.
Compared to Santana- joining a ballot with 4 guys who have gotten 45% of the vote. Also 3 guys with over 140 ERA+.
for pitchers- it’s really a crowded ballot now. Clemens, Mussina, Schilling. Then Hoffman for relief pitchers.
Actually though the point that you´re making in #1 is different to what I was responding to. Here´s the quote from Craig:
“Santana was great, but he really doesn’t come close to Koufax in terms of greatness.”
Craig’s statement is about whether or not Santana deserves to be elected, not whether or not he can be elected. The data, in my opinion, don’t support Craig’s statement unless you put so much weight on playoff performance as to render all other data meaningless. And Craig never references playoff performance in his analysis. He decided that Santana doesn’t come close to Koufax entirely based on regular season performance.
I believe Koufax waltzes in even today if he’s the same dominant baseball pitcher who has the same cultural impact. Not to mention, walking away from the game at his peak as he did would add the same luster to his legend as it did back in the 1960s. He’d be an easy first-ballot HOFer. He was universally regarded as the most difficult pitcher by the competition, and it’s backed up by the numbers. As I noted elsewhere, he didn’t just lead the league in ERA for five straight seasons, he led the league in FIP for six straight seasons. What other pitchers have ever done that? Maybe Christy Mathewson? The sabermetic community would have been advocating Koufax for the Cy Young Award for six straight years just as they basically push for Trout for MVP every year now. If anything, Koufax might be even more admired for his dominance today.
Two fewer years when you’re talking about 6-8 year sample sizes is a pretty significant number, no?
Look, at some point we have acknowledge that context matters, and that the context for pitchers (in particular) has changed a lot over the years. We could just as easily say that Koufax isn’t a HOFer because it took him 6 years to do what Walter Johnson did in 4 years. I think we can all see the problem with that sort of argument. And just as Koufax pitched under very different circumstances than Johnson, Santana pitched under very different circumstances than Koufax. And unless we acknowledge that context matters very soon, we’re headed towards a time in which no starters will get elected to the Hall.
Agreed that Johan deserves more votes & that his career was close to Koufax’s.
But disagreed that, if context doesn’t get more appreciation then we are heading towards a time when no SPs will. Jack Morris just got in, and 4+ are likely to get in in the next 5 years or so.
Here are all the SPs eligible in the next 5 classes:
https://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2022.shtml
Schilling & Mussina will get in imminently, Clemens soon. Halladay likely 1st ballot with 57.6 JAWS (4.5 below average).
Next, a huge gap in JAWS to well-below average HOF candidates like: Hudson (48.5), Santana (48.1), Pettitte (47.5) & Beuhrle (47.1).
The ‘context’ argument is already popular enough to know that Pettitte will get in, regardless of PEDs, but Beuhrle will be relying on Eras committee voters, with iffy odds. Santana and Hudson will some strong support in the Eras committee, despite having JAWS-Jpos of -20.
The SPs on the next tier down are Oswalt (45.1), Lee (42.5), Zambrano (41.8) and Moyer (41.8). Further, Jake Peavey, Dan Haren, etc. Likely none of these 6 get in, which is about right. So what’s the concern- that Santana, Hudson & Beuhrle will have to go to the Eras committee and maybe only 2 will get in?
There really is no backlog problem- any great HOF class with 4 legitimate average-or-better candidates like this class will make the ballot look crowded for one year.
There are 4 weak classes coming up, during which the only 3 above-average SP candidates (Schilling, Mussina & Clemens) and 2 beloved below average candidates (Halladay & Pettitte) will all get in via the writers’ vote.
The other below average candidates – likely featuring Santana as the best of the lot, with Hudson following- will get a few guys in via the Eras committee meetings in ’22, ’23, ’27 & ’28.
Not really the point I was trying to make. Craig claims that Santana isn’t a HOFer because his peak was below that of Koufax. But Santana was pitching 40 years after Koufax, when starters weren’t pushed as hard. And that trend is likely going to continue. Starters are going to pitch fewer and fewer innings. Which means that pitcher peaks are going to continue to decline. So what happens 40 years after Santana? Are we just going to dismiss the top starters because they’re only getting 4-6 WAR a year, pitching 150-180 innings a year? Or are we willing to adjust our expectations based on the era they’re pitching in, as we should with Santana? There was an article on Fangraphs recently addressing this very topic but I can’t seem to find it.
Context matters, yes, but at a certain point there simply has to be an accounting for guys with lighter workloads facing fewer batters, affecting fewer innings and games, and creating fewer wins. This is why I don’t support any non-Rivera reliever’s candidacy. As the line between starter and reliever continues to blur going forward, it’s going to be very interesting to see how the Hall handles it. I would think that fewer pitchers will get in, and honestly I would think that would be the correct outcome.
Yet fWAR has it not as close, which points out why the various forms of WAR (or similar) stats can’t always be the final arbiter.
Yes, you’re correct, much of the difference is based on how pitchers were used, which means Santana didn’t get that same chances in season to impact his WAR, yet Koufax did step out on the mound and pitch over 300 innings three times, including back-to-back years when he also led the league in complete games. He did pitch about 15% more Major League innings than Santana. We can’t take that away from him. He did lead the league in ERA five straight seasons, but he also led the league in FIP for six straight seasons, compared to three straight for Santana. We can’t subtract from Koufax’s record because of the time he played in, or add to Santana’s record because of the time he played in. Ok, assume Santana pitches more innings if he played in Koufax’s era, but then why don’t we assume that Koufax maybe pitches more seasons because of the lighter workload if he pitched when Santana did, and has an even higher K rate because hitters’ approaches changed?
All we can do is judge the players based on the era in which they played, and while in almost all cases Santana compares favorably with Koufax, he also falls short of Koufax in almost all cases. This doesn’t even address the cultural impact of Koufax, who was viewed as true generational superstar, and yes that does count when talking (and voting) for the HOF. The HOF has always been about marketing the game. Santana simply falls short. Every argument for Santana is trying to get him on the same level as Koufax because he’s always a little short of it, and that is quite telling. Yes, he’s great, but he’s not going to make it.
“All we can do is judge the players based on the era in which they played”
That’s MY point. 🙂
As for how many times they each led the league in various things, obviously Koufax pitched when there were 8-10 teams in the league. Santana pitched when there were 15 teams in the league. More teams = harder to lead the league in various categories.
“This doesn’t even address the cultural impact of Koufax, who was viewed as true generational superstar, and yes that does count when talking (and voting) for the HOF.”
And how much of that is due to pitching in LA vs Minnesota? Plus, when Koufax pitched, MLB had little competition for the attention of sports fans. The NFL and NBA were both obviously around, but weren’t the behemoths they are today. From what I understand, baseball players were simply marketed more in Koufax’ time than they were in Santana’s.
“Every argument for Santana is trying to get him on the same level as Koufax because he’s always a little short of it, and that is quite telling.”
But at best it’s a small difference between the two, not the sort of difference that leads one to be a first ballot HOFer and the other (likely) one and done.
Using the JAWS data as it is a nice and easy way to compare both total and peak value. Santana comes out slightly behind on peak7 and slightly ahead on career value.
Perhaps the real Koufax vs Santana issue is cherry picking Koufax? I grabbed all SPs who were +/-10% of Santana in rWAR and Peak7 rWAR and kept any that debuted within the last 100 years.
Sandy Koufax — 1st ballot HoFer who got 86.2% of the vote. Looking good so far.
Wilbur Wood– stuck around on six ballots [and not sure how, under 5% on his first two]
George Uhle– was on three ballots, all 1.5% or less [same 5% Q]
Bucky Walters– on fifteen ballots, seven times under 5%
Kevin Appier– one and done, got like 2 votes total
Frank Viola– one and done, got like 2 votes total
Mark Langston– one ballot and apparently got 0 votes
Now, different WAR, but to visualize, here are the WAR Graphs for those players [removed Bucky Walters as I couldn’t figure out how to get the graphs to include him as a pitcher rather than positional player]:
https://www.fangraphs.com/graphsw.aspx?players=3,1007124,1007323,755,1013266,1013435,1014248
Koufax and Wood stand out as outliers IMO, and Uhle was a massively different era, so maybe the better comps for Johan Santana would just be Appier/Langston/Viola and with those comps his HoF voting seems to be in line…
With Johnny Damon most of his negative defense was due to his noodle arm. Not that it changes anything. I just like saying “noodle arm.”
The lazy dismissal of Kenny Powers as an exaggeration of Roger Clemens overlooks the shared bond the fictional Kenny and the all-too-real Johnny Damon have with their Jet Skis.
I always pegged Kenny Powers as a John Rocker type. Super racist, meteoric rise and fall, out of the league without a shred of dignity, etc.
I know Aubrey Huff has no case for induction, but can’t we just get the red thong?
I don’t understand how anyone could vote for Vizquel over Rolen or Andruw. All three have defense as their primary calling card, only Rolen and Andruw are also better hitters as well as being at least as good defensively.
I don’t agree with it, but I understand it. SS is perceived as a more premium position on the defensive spectrum. Omar lasted longer and his defense remained with him until the end, and he was considered durable. The other two guys fell off (Rolen was always injury prone and that took a toll, and Jones had a precipitous drop in his early 30’s that started some rumors about why such a drop occurred before he went overseas). Plus they just looked ugly at the end. People don’t remember Jones the way they should, they mix in his early defense with the late-career Zombie Jones swinging at sliders 3 feet outside and Frankensteining around the OF. I don’t agree with it, at all, but I understand why some would vote for him and not Rolen or Andruw.
Yep, that’s pretty much the narrative for Vizquel vis a vis Jones and Rolen.
To which I would add that I see voters saying that Vizquel was “clean and played the game the right way”. Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence one way or the other re: Vizquel and PEDs. And there have been plenty of light hitters busted for PEDs.
“Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence one way or the other re: Vizquel and PEDs.”
In other words, there’s absolutely no evidence that Vizquel did use illegal PEDs — which is the evidence that he didn’t.
Same as Vlad and Thome and Chipper and Rolen and Johan Santa, et. al..
Santana is remarkable because he’s at 0 votes on the ballot tracker.
I think he’s borderline, very similar to Lincecum, because he’s a huge but short peak w/ a really bad tail-off at the end of his career. But zero votes!
You know, I said this then I looked at Lincecum’s career numbers. I’m actually a bit shocked at how low they are. Not such a great comp I guess.
As a Giants fan, I’ve had a fantasy of a acareer that combines Lincecum’s 2008-09 with Jason Schmidt’s 2003-04, with those guy’s other seven effective years and also Matt Cain’s first eight years added for longevity. 80.7 WAR, 232-156, 3.21, 8.6 K/9, 2 CYA – that would be a HoF career. (although, frustratingly, still probably often in the shadow of Kershaw …)
Big Game Timmy Jim just barely gets to the 10 necessary seasons with 3 partials. Not that it matters that much, I just found it interesting when I pulled him up after reading your comment.
I would not call Lincecum borderline. If he made it into even his early-30s, he might have had a chance.
Pretty much all of Lincecum’s value came in his first 4 (5 including partial rookie year) full seasons. His later seasons were not good per fWAR, but they were terrible by rWAR (5 straight negatives). Pretty amazing, actually.
I don’t believe Lincecum is that close to Santana. Santana is closer to Koufax than Lincecum is close to Santana. Lincecum really bolted out of the gate with two Cy Young seasons, followed up by two good seasons, but his career ERA+ is 104. His rWAR sits at a tick over 21.
I think Andruw’s other biggest problem was that he appeared aloof and casual playing the game (how dare he have fun!). It didn’t matter that he played nearly every single game for a decade, while crashing into walls. I guess aloof players just don’t have injuries that they play through, so no points for toughness or commitment. You need to throw some shit and get ejected on a regular basis so the voters know you care.
Get penalized for looking like you’re having fun, get penalized for looking like you’re not having fun. People are hard to please.
For all the snark (deserved or not) towards Vizquel, I think his induction helps the long term cases of Jones and Rolen. Vizquel will go in because of Gold Gloves and not much else; once he does, folks will turn the their attention to Jones and Rolen, see they have a ton of Gold Gloves as well, and the offensive numbers to bridge the gap (in their minds) between Vizquel’s otherworldly defense and Rolen/Jones’ amazing defense.
I’m not saying I agree. In fact, I personally think not putting Rolen and Jones in first ballot is lunacy. But it seems like this is just how these things have always worked. To the non WAR believing voter, they’ll need Omar in first, and then they’ll say, ‘well hey, if Omar is in, the better hitting versions of him in center and third probably should too.’ It’ll take a few years, but I think it’ll happen.
Vizquel won’t go in.
He is getting protest votes of various kinds, both from the anti-PED crowd and from the ‘lets show how stupid the ballot is’ crowd.
I don’t see him getting in by the BBWAA. It wouldn’t shock me if some future version of the ERA Committees vote him in as they did Morris. Maybe not. If his vote total starts to back track after year one, the momentum could be lost.
I always feel guilty arguing strongly against players like Vizquel and Morris. They were both excellent players who I’d want on my team, but both fall short of HOF standards for me. The true greatness of the HOF should rest of the backs of players like Vizquel and Morris by their exclusion. It should illustrate how difficult it is to make the HOF and how great a player truly has to be.
Can there just be a stop to any hall of fame article and Omar Vizquel’s name being apart of it?
My vote is for Edgar Martinez, Professional Hitter. Had the best hitting record against Mariano Rivera, something like 10 for 19.
Bill Freehan is also deserving!
While Andruw Jones had a very productive career, he lost my hypothetical vote when he showed up to spring training overweight in 2008. There are a lot of equally deserving players who could be bothered to stay in shape.
For me, it was one time in a 2004 game when he struck out looking with 2 RISP. There are a lot of equally deserving players who could be bothered to take the bat off their shoulders.
Yep. That makes a lot of sense.
It’s a nice ballot, easy to select 10 guys. If I had a vote, I’d probably vote for both Chipper and Andruw Jones, Thome, Vlad, Moose, Schilling (although I really don’t like the guy), Walker, Santana, Edgar, McGriff.
I don’t know if I’d vote for Johan, but I think the Koufax comp is more apt than Craig does. (I use BR metrics throughout this comment.)
— JAWS and Hall of Stats rate Johan higher.
— Johan has a career edge in Wins Above Average (WAA), 32.3 to 30.7.
— Johan led his league more often in pitching WAR and in ERA+ (both by 3-2).
— Any selection of peak span is necessarily arbitrary. Koufax has a comfortable edge in shorter spans, but their 8-year peaks are quite close: Koufax 50.2 WAR/31.3 WAA (1959-66), Johan 47.5 WAR/32.5 WAA (2003-10). Each led MLB in both measures; head-to-head, each has a small edge in one measure.
— For 10-year peak, Koufax was #1 in WAR and WAA (52.6/31.2 over 1957-66), Johan #2 in both (50.4/33.9 for 2001-10). Again, each has one edge head-to-head.
Lastly, there is at least anecdotal evidence that Koufax’s home-field advantage at Dodger Stadium — the years that put him in the Hall — was more than the neutralizing formula accounts for. He had the biggest home ERA edge among Dodger regulars in 1962-66 (-1.20, next was -0.97), and we’ve heard that the mound was built up specifically for him and Drysdale. Koufax still was #1 in road ERA for that span — but so was Johan for his 5-year peak, and by a bigger margin.
I can’t help thinking this conversation would be a bit different if Johan had won the 2005 CYA that he clearly deserved.
I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t vote for Johan but this comment and this post have me thinking more seriously about his case than I had before. Thanks for taking the time.
If we can’t get Moyer in the Hall, perhaps some of the Onion pieces about him can go to Cooperstown:
https://sports.theonion.com/jamie-moyer-change-up-arrives-at-home-plate-after-long-1819569917
Jim Edmonds, sitting at home, after falling off after one ballot, says HI!
I confess I don’t really understand the consolation-prize fixation on the number of ballots a player stays on. Edmonds is a pretty clear Hall of Very Good guy; why is it an injustice that he didn’t stick around the ballot for a few more years before falling off?
I don’t think that assessment is so clear, Roger. Among all CFs, Edmonds ranks 15th in bWAR, 13th in WAA. JAWS ranks him 15th, Hall of Stats 13th (and well above the induction threshold).
There are 17 CFs in the Hall, using the standard of 50% of games at that position. Edmonds is above the median WAA, and just below the median bWAR.
Only 2 CFs have been inducted since Mays, and I’d put Edmonds easily above Puckett.
Again, I’m not sure I’d vote for him, especially on a crowded ballot. But I’m disappointed he was one-and-done, when Kirby was one-and-in.
OK, maybe in this case I’m mistaking the claim “he should’ve been in” for the claim “he should’ve stuck around the ballot longer before falling off.” The former I understand (even if I disagree in this specific case) — but I’m still curious about the latter.
I think the “majority of career at CF” grouping is a pretty artificial one considering the typical aging path for a possibly-Hall of Fame-caliber hitter who plays the outfield. But I probably agree with you about Puckett.
Re: “majority of career at CF” — Even dropping the threshold to 40% of career games only brings in one more HOFer, Robin Yount. And I’d still call him a shortstop.
A standard of 800 games in CF further adds Andre Dawson to the “CF” HOF list. And I’ll take Edmonds over Andre; lower bWAR but much higher WAA.
Anyway, your point about “typical aging path” is a further point for Edmonds, who remained a plus defensive CF through age 35.
Probably beside the point to get any deeper into this sideline argument but my resistance to the case for Edmonds is partly based on not at all buying that he was a plus defender, especially in his later career. Anyhow I appreciated the incentive to re-read this enjoyable Fagerstrom piece about him, and maybe others will as well:
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/appreciating-jim-edmonds/
But as long as you keep making points, I’ll make counterpoints: Edmonds from 1994-2005 rates as a very good defensive outfielder by both FG and BR, and he won 8 Gold Gloves. Yes, he had a reputation for creating highlight plays, and I won’t say I never saw that; but how much can we put our own eye test above the hard evidence?
As to his later career, yes, his defense declined after age 35, as most OFs do. And that’s all baked into his value numbers.
I agree that Edmonds should have received more consideration. Comparing him to Puckett doesn’t really work though, since Puckett had the tragic career ending on-field injury for everyone to see.
Edmonds still tops Puckett just for age 24-35, the years Kirby played. And while Kirby’s injury was an unfortunate accident, I don’t think it’s fair to imagine him producing substantially more value in those lost years, unless we also do a “fault” analysis of Edmonds’s injury time.
When discussing the HoF candidacys of Jim Edmonds and Andruw Jones, Kenny Lofton probably deserves a mention.
There are only 3 players with a JAWs-jPos above 0 coming onto the ballot within the next 5 years: only ARod, Jeter and Mo Rivera.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2022.shtml
Vlad (2nd year) doesn’t need to go in this year, he has a below average profile and can get in once those better get in: Chipper, Schilling, Mussina, Walker, Thome, Rolen & Martinez. Hoffman (3rd year) has a JAWS-Jpos of -10.4, it is not a tragedy if he has to wait.
Chipper (1st year), Schilling (5th), Mussina (6th), Walker (8th), Thome (1st), Rolen (1st) & Martinez (9th) are 7 who clearly deserve to go into the HOF asap. Only Walker and Martinez are at risk of having to get in through the Eras committee, where both would easily get in.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/awards/hof_2018.shtml#all_hof_BBWAA
That still leaves 3 spots- and coincidently, there are only 3 caught PED users with above average profiles- Clemens Bonds and Manny, so there is room for them too.
The ‘always present but never emphasized’ PR angle of this argument is to ‘let the caught PED users in.’ No one who plans on leaving out Bonds/Clemens would have any sort of problem with the 10 vote limit potentially forcing them to not vote for an above average candidate.
Direct advocacy of the ‘let the caught PED guys in’ angle doesn’t play well, this labored argument that ‘we have to let the caught PED users in because there is no other way to let deserving guys like Walker and Martinez in,’ is printed at least once a week.
In reality it is easy – there are only 10 candidates with above average profiles this year, and that number is set to decline for 5 straight years immediately after this year’s great class.
This year is a historically great class (Jones, Rolen, Thome, Jones), and the next 5 years has only 3 above average profiles in total, there is no problem with the 10 vote limit- pro-PED or not. Including 2013, when zero members were inducted by the writers, 12 players have been inducted in the past 5 years (not including Eras committee). From now until the 2022 election, there will only be 12 candidates with a positive JAWS-Jpos: including Bonds, Clemens, Arod & Manny. It is likely that more than 12 candidates will be selected during that time, plus a handful from the Eras committee. There simply isn’t a fact-based argument that above average HOF candidates will have lose out due to a ‘back log’ caused by not voting for the caught PED users.
Travis is uncritical that Hoffman (3rd year) and Vlad (2nd) are being pushed to the front of the line with under average profiles- blaming any chance that Martinez and Walker get bumped to the Era committee on the anti-PED voters who have caused the supposed back log.
The authors’ own suggested ballot proves how easy the choice is and how non-existent the supposed back log: leaving Vlad and Manny to face a 3rd round of voting, and Sheffield to face a 5th works fine- none of those had the sort of careers that demand immediate enshrinement.
There is no actual log jam. ESPN/fangraphs writers keep plugging this meme, as often as they lament Boras’ clients not getting huge deals, i.e. twice a week.
jim edmonds also probably was a better candidate than vlad. still one and done
I’m still LOLing at the belief that Jack Morris is more Hall-worthy than Luis Tiant or Tommy John (much less David Cone and Kevin Brown, much less Clemens, Schilling, and Mussina).
Jim Rice, Jack Morris, and Bruce Sutter > Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and (probably) ARod has me care noticably less about the HoF membership roster.
So what if the issue with caught PED users was not ‘committed crime- used controlled substance to cheat’ and was instead ‘committed crime- convicted of sexual assault?’
Where do you draw the line- does a murderer deserve to be honored if his onfield performance compares well? It’s not an easy line to draw, and the split discussion, on-going debate, and the process of taking the time and opening up the matter to voters is a good way to resolve the dilemna.
Surely nobody is saying that Rice, Morris & Sutter are better than Bonds, Clemens or Arod- they are simply taking time to figure out where and how to draw a tricky line.
“Surely nobody is saying that Rice, Morris & Sutter are better than Bonds, Clemens or Arod”
One could say that putting the former three players in the Hall of Fame is baseball’s way of asserting that they were better players than their peers who are not in.
Also, to my mind, if someone used PEDs, I give them a ding from their “Hall-Worthiness Points” for how much I feel the PEDs helped them, and then reevaluate whether they still make the cut. And, as I see it, Bonds, Clemens, and ARod clearly do (and Manny does too). Seems like the Hall implicitly endorsed this methodology last year by enshrining IRod, another guy who, assuming he did use, still makes the cut after adjustement.
I personally would not mind seeing Palmeiro, Sosa, Sheff, and Mac in the HoF, but I also can understand keeping them out. But by keeping Bonds, Clemens, and ARod out, I feel the Hall loses credibility, not the players.
I also think purposefully losing games (maybe Pete Rose, definitely Shoeless Joe) is a bigger “sin” against the game than doing everything that one can to win (everyone who has ever used PEDs, cocaine, meth/greenies, stolen signs, corked a bat, sandpapered or vasolined a ball, etc). Keep the former two guys out, the latter is more forgivable.
It’s funny to see Orlando Hudson’s name on a list of players in a HOF discussion, even if it’s in the context of “guys who likely shouldn’t come close to HOF consideration.
He was one of my favorite Blue Jays during his time in Toronto, if only because he was a great interview and every year he and Chris Woodward would go on one of the national sports networks in Canada and make NHL playoff picks in spite of both of them admitting they knew nothing about hockey. Though I want to say in O-Dawg’s last year with the Jays after Woodward departed that they paired him with someone on the team who was a legit hockey fan. It’s a shame that videos of these segments haven’t survived for posterity…
I’d vote Vladimir Guerrero, Chipper Jones, Omar Vizquel, Curt Shilling, likely Larry Walker, Jim Thome maybe, Rolen maybe, Mike Mussina, Fred McGriff. PED guys are like all cheaters, a big no (includes spitballers too). How can you say PED users get in the Hall but can’t compete in the Olympics? Asinine to even try, but people will try and say cheating in 2000 is somehow better than cheating in 2016. No way to Andruw Jones for so, so many reasons. 10 space are too little if you use subjective, biased, meandering advanced stats and think they matter. 10 spaces are plenty if you look at slash lines, career totals, career averages, true accomplishments, and if that player affected wins (not WAR, I mean actual wins, like joining a team and they go from 70 wins a year to 85 with you, actual wins). I do laugh, and laugh, at people who think WAR tells you much. Want to bet it can’t tell you who can hit a curveball?
Surely this is a joke, no one on this site thinks like this.
There is nothing about advanced metrics suggesting that 10 spots is too few- its simply an agenda being pushed.
I’d take the bet, only you wouldn’t accept the “meandering advanced stats” that would likely prove your wrong and I’d never get paid.
Just a note: Matsui also had a World Series MVP in 2009.
I agree with your votes entirely.